Defend European Civilization!

Much though I want to see Brexit happen I think its important to also urge our fellow Europeans to throw off the shackles of political “correctness” and resist the migrant invasion. The UK will not be in a good place if large areas of Europe become Islamified. The leaders of Great Britain in the past understood the importance of a stable Europe. We would be very unwise not to give our support to the likes of Frauke Petry, Geert Wilders, Viktor Orban and Marine Le Pen. Marine Le Pen particularly has a hard task to overcome the legacy of her father’s political viewpoint – we should appreciate the fact that she has moved her party away from antisemitism. It is particularly important that France with its nuclear weapons does not succumb.

The relentless barrage of bad news relating to the migrant crisis has shocked me to the core, just one example here of how the traitors who “lead” us are assisting the illegal immigrants and trampling on our liberty:

[Hat tip to Vlad Tepes via John L. Work for publicizing the video]

Let us also show our support to our ordinary fellow Europeans who have been let down by their governments and help them find the courage to win the argument for defending Europe’s borders. We are all Luigi. A wrong done to one is a wrong done to all.

I prefer to accept those of other races who have joined our civilization in the past and contributed to it, who have learned our languages and become Europeans in spirit and culturally. Let us also show solidarity with those brave ex-Muslims who risk everything to resist their religion, everybody must watch this to understand what can happen to those people even in the UK:

We must find a new vocabulary and a new patriotism. We must unite not around race but around the shared belief in the freedom of speech and democracy and human progress.

[This post originally posted on the Not the Daily Telegraph channel]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

In the discussion of the above post some questions were raised, I give some answers to them here:

Q. Is the migrant crisis the West’s fault for intervening in the Middle East?

A. A large number of the migrants are not coming from Syria, or anywhere near it. Many of the migrants are coming from southern and central Africa for example. Of those who are coming from Syria they have a safe haven in Turkey or Jordan, they should remain there. There are other Islamic countries near by that should be pressured to help them as well. The West’s interventions in the region are simply an excuse, not a reason for the influx into Europe. Most of the migrants are simply opportunistically trying to enter Europe, who knows to what end. We must resist illegal immigration – if migrants are prepared to break the law to enter our country, we should not be surprised when they break the law again, once they are here, as many are doing.


Q. Can we expect a majority of Muslims will ever be able to lose their religion? Since they were raised to believe from birth it is particularly difficult.

A. We will never know for sure how many will be persuaded by the arguments until we try – we must find the courage to challenge Islamic beliefs.


Q. Should we treat Muslims better in the hope that they will become Westernized?

A. We have been treating Muslims in Europe very well for many decades – many have been the recipients of free housing, free healthcare, free education, and we have allowed them to build their mosques in our countries, and given them equal opportunities in employment. Far from becoming Westernized, they have grown further apart, encouraged by their divisive religion. It is time to resist the religion by calling for the closure of mosques. We must reform welfare by putting time limits on welfare payments, and refuse to fund those who irresponsibly have children while they are unemployed.


Q. Is there hope for an Islamic reformation?

A. The short answer is that Islam cannot be reformed, it revolves around the “perfect example” of Mohammed who was a brutal intolerant bandit who became a ruler purely by conquest. I will explain my reasoning for this position at more length in a future post.

RELATED POSTS:

Our Shared European Identity

A Clash of “Civilizations”?

Advertisements

Groupthink In Action

I mentioned an episode of the BBC Radio 4 series called “Law in Action” in a recent post. The episode was:

Terrorism, Extremism and the Law

In this episode the BBC presenter Joshua Rozenberg (JR) talks with a Muslim called Dr. Salman Butt, with the former GCHQ director Sir David Omand, and with David Anderson QC (DA QC), about the government’s “Prevent” strategy and the surveillance bill known as the Snooper’s charter.

[Note: The longer 45 minute version of the program is found by clicking on the download MP3 link in the above web page]

I decided to write a specific post about this program because I think it helps to shine a light on the way the government and the mainstream media (particularly the BBC) exist in a narrow-minded ideological group-think bubble. Together they reinforce each others’ prejudices and work to block voices from outside the bubble from being heard. Many people consequently have come to the view that the current establishment is engaging in a sort of conspiracy that is actively working for the benefit only of a narrow rich elite, and against the interests of ordinary people. Unfortunately I think there is a degree of truth in this, although I think the closed nature of the establishment “clique” is also a problem in its own right. Even if there is such a big conspiracy going on, it will eventually come back to haunt the establishment elite themselves as the whole Western world will either likely descend into chaos and conflict, or become part of a theocratic caliphate which will not be kind to the former elite. Either way, they are living in a deluded ideological bubble which needs to be burst, and soon.

[Click the READ MORE button to see this post in full:]

Read More »

An Open Letter To John Rees-Evans

Dear John

I am taking the time to write this because I think you may in fact be a good candidate to be the next UKIP leader in general.  What I feel however is that there may be a huge blind spot in your thinking which troubles me greatly.  To be fair to you its the same blind spot that most prospective politicians in the UK seem to also suffer from.  We never find out what politicians really think about it because its practically a taboo subject in UK politics currently.

WHAT BLIND SPOT?

The blind spot is Islam.  I conclude this from your comment:

“UKIP is the only party that doesn’t care what religion you are…”

in this video:

By the way there is nothing racist about objecting to a person’s religion as you seem to be implying by your remarks here.  I also think it is extremely unwise to allow people into our country whose stated beliefs are that they should strike terror into our hearts by smiting our necks and cutting all our fingertips off (Quran 8:12).  Even, or perhaps especially, if they are qualified doctors.

You may not feel you have time to listen to my arguments about Islam but that is part of the problem here – our politicians never do.  They are too busy talking about Brexit (rightly), immigration (rightly), “modern slavery”, transgender rights, the national debt (occasionally) and then whatever trivialities the mainstream media are fussing about today (donkeys?!?).  Islam is a grave threat to our way of life.  Islam incites its followers to commit acts of violence including terrorist attacks, murder, rape against us non-Muslims.  I explained in more detail how it does this here:

Incitement and Religion

Islam also threatens our way of life because it is not just a religion but also a supremacist political ideology – a blueprint for brutal totalitarian rule following the “beautiful example” of Mohammed.  If Muslims ever become the majority of UK citizens our democracy and freedom of speech will be doomed.  Even a large Muslim minority could spell the end of a truly free society – in fact measures proposed by the Conservative govt. have threatened this already, supposedly as a response to the threat of “extremism”.  There are already areas of the UK that are in practical terms no longer part of the UK, having their own courts and even police.  We can fully expect this trend to continue under the feeble current political establishment’s policies.

EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW

Equality before the law has been eroded by a number of trends in recent decades, a subject I wrote about here:

The Principle of the Thing – Equality Before The Law

Do you intend to address incitement law?  Currently we have the problem that followers of religions (particularly Islam) are free to incite violence/murder/rape against the rest of us.  If the law was applied logically and consistently then mainstream Islamic preachers would be arrested for suggesting that the Koran is the unquestionable word of the only god.  The Koran incites violence, murder, terror, rape as I explained in the post linked to above.  We can never have equality before the law as long as there is one law for the religious and another for everyone else.

HOW CAN WE ADDRESS THE PROBLEM CALLED ISLAM?

CLOSE SHARIA COURTS?

You apparently have promised to close Sharia courts but you will be unable to do this except in a few isolated instances when complaints are made to the police by those affected.  Sharia courts can take place anywhere, behind closed doors.  They also often take place in areas that are practically no-go zones for the police.  Therefore any efforts you make in this direction will be futile and never amount to more than a token gesture.  You will not be able to close most of them down and it is very unwise of you to promise to do this – you are raising expectations that you cannot deliver.

BAN MINARETS AND THE CALL TO PRAYER?

This is certainly worth considering and would have some effect.  As someone reminded me today, the process of direct democracy could enable the people to bring forward a measure such as this.  By this route we could minimize the diplomatic difficulties that would be involved if our government proposed this directly.  A ban on minarets was actually implemented in Switzerland by this route.  I fully support direct democracy but we must also address voting fraud before we launch direct democracy.

CLOSE MOSQUES?

Closing mosques would have an effect on reducing Islamic influence in general because they are very visible symbols of the religion.  They embolden the preachers who encourage their followers to think Islam is going to replace our way of life.  They cause non-Muslims to leave the areas where they appear because non-Muslims feel alienated by them and there are often “parking problems” (something Gavin Boby has referred to as parking jihad – cars blocking private entrances and so forth).

Of course closing mosques would be quite an inflammatory thing to do, although certainly not nearly as inflammatory as a lot of things that go on in Muslim majority countries.  Somehow I doubt that you will want to contemplate this course of action – perhaps direct democracy could also deliver this.

Another softer approach would be to covertly encourage councils to block all future planning applications for new mosques and mosque extensions, this would be better than blithely approving the applications as seems to be the current policy.  Unfortunately due to the rate of change such measures would only likely slow the growth of Islamic influence a little.  That is not good enough, we need to reverse this trend.

https://mosqueblock.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/great-lever-mega-mosque-approved-again/

WELFARE REFORM

This is in fact the most significant area where something can easily be done right away.  I am very pleased to see UKIP wants to limit child benefit to 2 children, although I would go further all the way down to zero.  I just don’t think we should be paying people to have children that they cannot support (or cannot be bothered to support in many cases).  This policy will likely meet great resistance from the left, especially when it is implemented and the inevitable sob stories start to be published.  You need to be prepared for that, reintroducing responsibility into society is going to meet a lot of resistance I believe.

THE DEATH PENALTY FOR MOHAMMED?

Apparently you have called for the death penalty for those paedophiles who target pre-pubescent children, a suggestion which many Muslims may find offensive, as I explained here:

Mohammed and Aisha – Why It Matters

UKIP AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH

A return to a sensible degree of freedom of speech is one essential thing we must have.  I am glad to hear this seems to be high on your agenda.  Then we can talk more openly of such subjects as that awkward one I just referred to, which is never mentioned at the BBC.

PRIVATIZE THE BBC

We need to do this urgently.  The BBC is brainwashing the UK population into believing that Islam is nice when its really not, among other things.  Perhaps privatizing the BBC is another policy that can be achieved through your proposed direct democracy.

THE UKIP AND ISLAM PROBLEM

A news article seems to illustrate this problem rather starkly – a UKIP candidate is banned for making this sensible suggestion:

“Ban Islam and knock down all mosques”

http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/85859/-ban-islam-candidate-kicked-out-of-ukip

Candidates should not be banned from your party for making sensible suggestions like that.  The recent leadership campaign does seem to be finally raising the question of what the contenders are referring to as “radical” Islam, a religion that is known to those of us in the know more simply as just plain ordinary Islam.

A BILL OF RIGHTS?

Another more radical way we might address these problems is by adopting an equivalent to the US constitution.  We would also have to recognize that with greater freedom comes greater danger – if we allow Islamic preachers to continue to incite violence against us then we must be able to protect ourselves, with an equivalent to the Second Amendment.  This would be a momentous change in our society that would need to be thought about long and hard.  It may become necessary in any case however due to Theresa May’s immigration policy (let them all in while pretending to be tough on immigration).

A SHORT STORY ABOUT A DONKEY AND A HORSE (OR WAS IT A BBC PRESENTER?)

Serious people do not care if you make a joke about a donkey raping a horse.  Serious people do care about the ever growing influence of Islam in the West.  Don’t worry about what BBC presenters think of you, the public at large is increasingly skeptical about everything the BBC represents, as I think was demonstrated by the Brexit vote.

SUMMARY

Please, get educated about Islam.  I’m not asking you to become the UK’s answer to Geert Wilders necessarily (its very, very dangerous to do what he is doing of course).  However we do need to care about what religions people follow, we really do.   The links to my posts above should be enough to convince you about that.

Perhaps politicians should stay out of the debate about Islam, but what they certainly should NOT do is to try to suppress that debate, as Theresa May has been doing.  Perhaps the best way forward is for greater freedom of speech and direct democracy, to allow incitement in fact.  In that case we also need to consider allowing people to defend themselves properly, as I suggested above, in case those incited decide to act.

High Court Judge Rules Islam Is A Religion Of Peace!

A UK High Court judge has ruled that Islam is a religion of peace as part of a decision in a libel case. This is very troubling because it may set a precedent that could influence future court judgements in the UK. This very serious (and probably wilful) misunderstanding of the Islamic religion is now in danger of becoming entrenched in the UK legal system. The case in question was a libel action brought by one Shakeel Begg against the British Broadcasting Corporation. The full details of the case are available here:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2016/2688.html

The case was commented on quite widely in the media, for example Douglas Murray hailed the judgement as a landmark victory in an article in the Spectator. However most commentators including Mr. Murray seem to have overlooked the fact that the ruling included this pronouncement about the nature of the Islamic religion. This aspect and the details of the judgement were brought to my notice by Graham Senior-Milne, who has written a detailed paper looking particularly at this aspect of the case. Its an entertaining and thought-provoking read, he draws some interesting conclusions:

Some comments on the case of Shakeel Begg v BBC

For brevity here I will just quote a few of his key points in this post.

One website that did comment on the interpretation of Islam in the judgement was a prominent UK Islamic website. I won’t link to that article as it may attract unwelcome attention from various directions, but in the article they also complained that the judgement would set a legal precedent about what is “acceptable” Islam in the UK courts.

WHAT WAS MR. BEGG COMPLAINING ABOUT?

Mr. Begg felt that he had been libelled by an episode of the BBC’s Sunday Politics program. The words he was particularly upset about were these:

The East London Mosque, which you personally and the MCB closely associated with, it’s also the venue for a number of extremist speakers and speakers who espouse extremist positions. This year Shakeel Begg, he spoke there and hailed jihad as “the greatest of deeds”. In 2009 the mosque hosted a video presentation by somebody described by US security as an Al-Quaeda supporter. You had another speaker there who in the past had described Christians and Jews as “filth”. You’ve had a jihadist supporter of the Taliban there. Why do you do nothing to stop extremism, extremists like that, at this mosque with which you’re associated with.

WHAT WAS THE JUDGEMENT?

You can see the bailii page for the full judgement, but here are some of the most important points:

It is common ground that Islam is a religion of peace. The Qur’an is a book of peace.

…..

I find the words complained of (“WCO”) are substantially true in their meanings: (1) The Claimant is an extremist Islamic speaker who espouses extremist Islamic positions. (2) The Claimant had recently promoted and encouraged religious violence by telling Muslims that violence in support of Islam would constitute a man’s greatest deed.

…..

The Claimant was something of a ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ character: he presented a (benign) face to the local Lewisham and inter-faith community and another (extremist) face to receptive Muslim audiences on chosen occasions.

HOW DID THE JUDGE REACH HIS CONCLUSION THAT ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE?

Mr. Senior-Milne draws our attention to paragraphs 112-113. In these paragraphs the judge hears Mr. Begg’s expert say that the Quran “licences” both offensive and defensive jihad, and the BBC’s expert say that it only allows armed defence. The experts also agree that there are differences of opinion among both Sunni and Shia jurists about what even constitutes offensive and defensive jihad. Somehow the judge then perplexingly decides from all this “expert” testimony that the Quran permits only defensive jihad, despite the clear difference in opinion between the two experts and the fact they say there is confusion among Islamic jurists on the question as well. In Mr. Senior-Milne’s words:

Arriving at a clear view necessarily means that you have resolved the key uncertainties, whatever they are. This is utter nonsense.  And it is nonsense in relation to the most critical question – whether Islam is a religion of peace. If Islam mandates offensive war then, by definition, it is not a religion of peace. So how can you conclude that Islam is a religion of peace while leaving unanswered the question of whether Islam mandates offensive war? You can’t.

IS ISLAM A RELIGION OF PEACE?

No, it is not a religion of peace because Islam incites violence/offensive warfare/terror against the “disbelievers”.  I explained my own reasons for reaching this conclusion here:

Incitement and Religion

Douglas Murray and Ayaan Hirsi Ali also managed to convince a large audience in an Intelligence Squared debate that Islam is not a religion of peace, despite the fact that they were up against Maajid Nawaz who is a Muslim who is very familiar with his own religion.

The judge came to the wrong conclusion about Islam.  The idea that Islam is a religion of peace is not “common ground” at all.

WAS IT EVEN NECESSARY FOR THE COURT TO MAKE A JUDGEMENT ABOUT ISLAM?

The judge seemed to think that it was necessary to decide whether Mr. Begg’s views were extreme compared to mainstream Islam. No it was not necessary to do this. There was no need for the court to listen to any experts’ opinions about the nature of the Islamic religion. As Mr. Senior-Milne puts it:

The question of extremism should not be judged by reference to (through the prism of) Islam at all – and for a very simple reason. If Islam itself is extreme in a certain way by the standards of the ordinary reasonable man, then a man who espouses such extremism is not extreme by Islamic standards (he is mainstream Islam), but he is extreme by the standards of the ordinary reasonable man. And it is by the standards of the ordinary reasonable man that the question of libel must be assessed – as Haddon-Cave himself acknowledges elsewhere in his judgment (para. 62).
….

Put it this way, if Haddon-Cave had found that Islam is extreme, would be have found that the BBC had libelled Shakeel Begg because, while he does espouse terrorism, he is not extreme by Islamic standards because Islam itself mandates terrorism?

WHAT WAS GOOD ABOUT THE JUDGEMENT?

The judgement has at least exposed Mr. Shakeel Begg’s activities and also shone a bit of a spotlight on what goes on in Lewisham mosque. It also has shone a bit of a spotlight on the Muslim Council of Britain, as Douglas Murray points out, serious questions now need to be asked of that organization because the Lewisham Islamic centre is a member.

Had we better perhaps investigate some more of the UK’s mosques to discover if more of them are similarly misunderstanding their religion (or should we say THE HON. MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE’s interpretation of their religion)? Those of you who remember the excellent Channel 4 documentary Undercover Mosque will know that this isn’t the first time that those preaching in mosques have misunderstood THE HON. MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE’s interpretation of their religion. To be fair those preachers had been speaking before THE HON. MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE had announced his decision.

Douglas Murray also draws our attention to the fact that apparently Lewisham mosque operates as a charity. Readers may wish to vent their frustration at the charity commission for assisting in the propagation of such extreme views. From Douglas Murray’s article:

Perhaps readers would like to ask the Charity Commission themselves. Complaints to the Charity Commission can be registered here:

The Lewisham Islamic Centre’s Charity number is: 285641.

Please submit your complaint.

HOW MUCH DID THIS TRIAL COST AND WHO WILL PAY THE BILL?

Mr. Senior Milne says that:

Note that the case has taken three years to determine (and there might still be an appeal).

I find it very alarming that so much of the High Court’s time has been wasted on this matter. I hope that Mr. Begg will personally have to foot the bill to cover every last penny of the costs.

ANOTHER LIBEL CASE IN THE PIPELINE

A Dr Salman Butt is apparently bringing a somewhat similar libel action against the UK government for accusing him of being an extremist. He can be heard talking about his views here:

BBC Radio 4 Law in Action

(Note – BBC programs do not always remain available indefinitely, readers might want to download the podcast if they want to listen at a later date).

It will be interesting to see whether this judgement will have a bearing on the decision in this forthcoming case.

THE PRETEND STRATEGY

Theresa May and David Cameron have been promising for some time that they will “stamp out extremism in all its forms” as an objective of their “Prevent” strategy. Many are inclined to think the strategy is having a good effect when it upsets Muslims. However the problem with the government’s strategy is not only that it is based on the avoidance of truth about the Islamic religion, but more worryingly still they have decided that all sorts of other people merit the label “extremist”, including some of their political opponents, and that those people should be silenced using “Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders”. They also want to tar opponents of the Islamic religion with the label “extremist”, because they too fail to fall in line with the establishment version of Islam. Could it be that the judge in this case felt somehow obliged to reinforce the government’s re-invention of the Islamic religion (which some have referred to disparagingly as “MI5 Islam”)?

It should not matter in our legal system who is an “extremist” and who is not. The word is subjective, it can never therefore be a useful term in drawing up laws. What matters is who incites violence and who does not.

CONCLUSION

This judgement about the nature of the Islamic religion seems to have been inspired by the establishment’s group-think view of how the threat of Islamic terrorism should be countered. The establishment imagine (in their deluded ideological bubble) that if they redefine Islam as a peaceful friendly sort of religion that the followers of the religion will stop noticing the words plainly written in black and white in their holy books. Obviously it is a strategy not only utterly doomed to failure but also almost certainly likely to exacerbate the dangers we face – by suppressing the honest debate that needs to take place and so allowing the problems to grow unchallenged.

RELATED POSTS:

Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders

The Pretend Strategy – From Chamberlain to Cameron

ELSEWHERE ON THE WEB:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2016/libel-case-dismissed

TRUMP WINS!!!

BBC COVERAGE – BREXIT ALL OVER AGAIN

Just as during the Brexit EU Referendum, the BBC “News” service confidently predicted a Clinton victory right up to the point when it became inescapably obvious that Trump was winning. To be fair, US opinion polls had been suggesting a close race with Clinton always shown in the lead. Once again, the opinion polls got it wrong.

The BBC was rightly criticized for its bias throughout the campaign:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/725660/BBC-newsnight-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bias-president-election-social-media-meltdown

SHOULD THE UK PROSECUTE DAVID ATTENBOROUGH FOR INCITEMENT TO MURDER?

David Attenborough, the (formerly) much loved wildlife documentary presenter famous for his Life on Earth programs on BBC TV, has called for the assassination of Donald Trump. Was he joking? I am not entirely sure, judge for yourself:

Attenborough’s head is in his hands but his response is curiously phlegmatic. Or perhaps pragmatic. “Yes, I know. Well, we lived through that with earlier presidents – they’ve been equally guilty… But what alternative do we have? Do we have any control or influence over the American elections?  Of course we don’t. [sotto voce] We could shoot him… It’s not a bad idea…” He catches my eye and giggles.

See the article in full here:

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-11-06/david-attenborough-on-planet-earth-ii-brexit-and-the-future-of-humanity

The “joke” certainly wasn’t very funny when you consider that there had been an actual attempt not long before by a British youth to actually shoot Donald Trump:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/20/donald-trump-assassination-attempt-las-vegas-rally

If he had jokingly called for the assassination of Theresa May do we think he would have escaped prosecution? Is there some special reason why its OK for a BBC TV presenter to call for the assassination of a political candidate whose political views he disagrees with? A young man was arrested and convicted in the UK for joking about blowing up an airport not so long ago. Increasing numbers of people have been prosecuted for merely “grossly offensive” comments on social media, but this was actual publicly voiced direct incitement to murder from an influential British public figure, albeit seemingly made in fairly jokey spirit.

Its time for a level playing field, its time to restore the freedom of speech and the principle of equality before the law. Those on the left have long escaped even rebuke from the left-leaning mainstream media for comments that would have led to the arrest and prosecution of those in less privileged positions. In my own legal framework I proposed that direct incitement would have to meet the test of “credibility” and I feel that Mr. Attenborough’s comment would fail that test (just). However, the law is being applied currently in a very unfair and inconsistent manner. There are too many laws endangering the freedom of speech.

I am not calling for David Attenborough’s arrest here, I am calling for a return to a meaningful degree of freedom of speech in the UK. He should be vilified for his statement however, it was a very crass and irresponsible thing to say, especially given the recent attempt on Mr. Trump’s life. It also wasn’t very long ago since a UK politician was murdered in broad daylight by a member of the public. All politicians take a great risk in the public service, regardless of what we think of their policies.

MAJOR QUESTIONS REMAIN RE. THE CLINTON FOUNDATION

Have the Clintons defrauded the UK taxpayer? Some of the allegations coming from the US seem to suggest so. I will be returning to this subject in future posts.

AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVERSE WESTERN DECLINE

I hope the Trump era will mean:

  • that the Anglosphere will now recover a sensible degree of pride and self-confidence.
  • that the era of receding freedom of expression will not just come to an end, but be reversed.
  • that the West’s disastrous recent meddling in the Middle East will come to an end and peace and stability will return to that region.
  • that the migrant influx into Europe and the West generally will be halted and reversed.
  • that the birth rate of Western Europeans will recover and return to sustainable levels, along with a return of our self-confidence.
  • that we will begin to win the ideological war against Islamic influence that so far we have been losing as much by our own fear and timidity as by the aggression of those who wish to take human progress backwards to the 7th century.

However we should not merely sit back and HOPE for these things to happen. Lets remember the famous words of the former (Democrat) president JFK:

“My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

We have a real opportunity here to reverse the toxic trends of self-loathing and political “correctness” which has blighted the West for so long.  If this is not merely to be a blip, but a real and permanent change in direction, then we all have a lot of work to do. It is time for people to rise up and participate in politics and public debate like never before. We have this great invention – the internet – at our disposal. Vast amounts of information about government policy for one thing are now easily available to us. We can scrutinize and question our governments’ plans like never before. Huge numbers of people have already joined the debate and arguments are being developed at a rate never before seen in human history. If you haven’t already, then please – start a blog, join in debates, get busy raising issues that concern you, write to your political representatives, join a demonstration. Do not allow this opportunity to go to waste, find the courage to voice your convictions.

Don’t forget, Donald Trump is only one man and he is not perfect. Many have called him a demagogue and even voiced fears that he will turn into some sort of dictator. I think these fears are unfounded, but power tends to corrupt and so we must hold him to account just as we should any leader when we disagree with a policy or direction. It is time for a new era of public participation to begin.

RELATED POSTS:

Its NO LONGER A Free Country